in response to the recent Advertising Age article
Digital-Talent Dearth Breeds Crisis
“Crispin thought it had its man, a digital producer experienced in getting integrated programs out the door. He was a West Coast freelancer with about six years of experience, perfect in every way but one: He was demanding $400,000, roughly what he's pulling in as a hired gun."
In response to the article, Digital-Talent Dearth Breeds Crisis, I think some of the questions that need to be asked are:
Who is responsible for the rising costs for top talent? Who is responsible for the demand? It’s true there are not enough good flash developers out there and not enough in training. The advantage is wonderful to talented developers. Great that the crisis is realized – but not great as some developers disguise themselves as rockstars and in turn are not.
“Salaries are soaring, perks are proliferating and promotions are pouring in."
Who is raising salaries? Employers. Who is poaching developers – agencies. It is starting to feel almost like the patterns at law firms – E-mails and phone calls, expensive trips and promises of an immediate new job at an agency working on prestigious brands. The fact is – all agencies are alike. Sure some have a better reputation and corporate culture, but for top talent, you’ll still work 18-20 hour days.
Now here’s the kicker. If a developer chooses to freelance just one or two projects offered from recruiters knowing at their door. This way the developer helps the agency get out of a bind and does a great, fast project for them. If that developer was never involved in the budgets and account related things for a project, he/she just found out how much their hard work, and loss of time with their family is earning the agency. The realization is that they just found out that in 2 weeks they can make about ¼ of your yearly salary.
So if the developer is just that good – personable, and can get the job done. Why stay at an agency? In fact my theory is as such – agencies all keep asking for full time developers. So if a top flash developer were to jump from shop to shop they now have culture readjustment, training and admin (health care set up, payroll et al) costs and its possible they still wont get work done at the office. The small thing many executives never realize is that developers – develop in private and many at night, at home. Once you obtain this developer, you announce it to the trades - in come the recruiters to try to steal that person away. More pressure and temptation. Next the developer instead of adjusting , is studying the shop and it’s corporate culture : are people in cubes, offices or is it more of a warehouse space? Is everyone at the office transient? Do employees see new people coming and going constantly? Is gossip and corporate getting in the way? uh – yes! (as a side note the AKQA DC office has the best corporate culture I have ever seen)
So why not contract that person. I know it is hard to share in the prestige of the project, but that’s what NDA’s are for – and many contract developers will sign them. This way the agency allows the developer to know the team just enough… not fully so that your internal issues/drama are getting in the way. If you have a great agency image, chances are the contractor will still feel that in working project based. Now you just created a loyalty and got exactly what you wanted – high end, blow your mind flash work that makes the brand win awards and in the end earns you more security with the clients contract. Now you have someone who will move mountains to be available to work for you all the time.
My final point is that I do not agree with this comment at all.
"Moreover, pricier Flash developers and interactive art directors are driving up production costs considerably, something marketers will be forced to consider when creating interactive budgets."
Do you remember the taste that developer got by doing a few contract projects. Well, they were told that the budget for a banner was $25,000 – they never imagined that would be right. The agencies and brands educated them about the proper prices. If you are willing to pay for a great contractor – doesn’t it benefit you in the long run? Think how much it takes to train and set up that person. Then think – “Hey, we didn’t have to turn down that project. And we did such a good job, we’ll probably get more business from it.” The market pricing has been set NOT by the developers – but by the industry as a whole.
When people ask me the hourly rate – I say, come on – who has an hourly rate anymore? I was an account director, I know we just use that to show some form of rationality and calculation. But hourly rates is not the way interactive shops calculate work. If the brand or agency is known for paying well – you flex the rate. I once saw a small local company pay $85,000 for someone to make logos and do a huge study on creating them. The designer did the logo the first night and then just sat back and let his team do all the “exercises.” There is rarely an honesty in pricing out these projects and no one knows what will be accepted when you bid. It’s so hard to bid for projects these days because you really aren’t necessarily looking at the work anymore.
The following factors are the real way projects get estimated these days, contractor or agency alike – The Approach
1. look at the level of intensity of the work.
2. look at the state it is coming to you in – art prep, etc.
3. look at the brand/agency – how many revisions will they have, how much communication time
4. pull from prior knowledge about rates this brand pays – because trust me if you go way too low you are thought to not be a great developer
5. quality of time – what else do you have on your plate, is it worth it – will I miss my wife’s birthday
6. do you like the people/brand (this has huge pull. If we like working with you for sure we’ll break our backs)
Come up with a median rate based on those 6 objectives – but know that all that matters is the scope of the project and the timeline in which we can get it done. To be completely honest, I find it shocking that some agencies will pay 25K for one week of banner work, and another will pay that for 3 months of work. To me it continues to show that there are no standards to this market and it is somewhat appauling. The best thing to do is be honest in what you think the rate should be. The good thing about contractors is that they aren’t all about profit margins. They want to do inspiring work that pays well. The agencies want to make profits and cover overhead.
So in conclusion – I am glad this article came out. I would like for the agencies to see that when they keep commenting that no one is loyal – it is because of the constant recruitment. I think that contracting and staffing up top talents for projects is a good idea if you have a dependable great developer. I’ve heard contract horror stories – and thankfully never witnessed them first hand.
I also fully support the need for inhouse staffing – contracting everyone would be ridiculous.
I support CD's and ECD's guiding a brand and a team – not slaving over the actual production. Hire some overhead and charge for it – it will help you in the long run and you will stay on track with the brand direction. I believe interactive should be given the same credit as broadcast – in fact, soon it will reach more eyes.
But in the long run, contracting your top resources could save you money and earn you more work in the long run.
Just my two cents –
